East Europe & Central Asia

Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why?   In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time.  It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome.   With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Chart 1 Chart 2 Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War   We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha.    Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2      Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3      Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008).  William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4      Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5      Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Appendix Appendix France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix U.K. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 19      Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The political economy of oil will become even more complicated, following remarks by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov over the weekend, which suggested policymakers there are considering another market-share war to crash prices to limit the growth of U.S. shales. The logic appears to be that by abandoning OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal and pushing Brent prices below $40/bbl once again for a year or so, Russia will severely reduce investment flow to the U.S. shale-oil patch, allowing it to retake global market share ceded mostly to Texas oil producers.1 The threat of a market-share war was proffered on top of stepped-up rhetoric by senior government officials – ranging from Igor Sechin, head of state-owned Rosneft Oil, to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) – indicating Russia will be pushing for higher production by OPEC 2.0 in 2H19 at the coalition’s upcoming June meeting. We agree with this assessment: The market will require OPEC 2.0 to lift production in 2H19, given our assessment of supply-demand balances. In our estimation, OPEC 2.0’s position has been strengthened considerably by policy-induced disruptions to the oil market.2 As such, we believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint, particularly since Russia has benefited greatly from higher prices (see below). Our balances and price forecasts this month are largely unchanged (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl. WTI will trade $7 and $5/bbl lower (Chart 2). The balance of price risk has shifted slightly to the left side of the distribution, driven by policy risk and potential miscalculation by the dramatis personae on the international stage, chiefly leaders in the U.S., Russia and China. Chart of the WeekMarkets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Markets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Markets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Chart 2...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts ...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts ...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts Highlights Energy: Overweight. Tensions in Libya could keep ~ 300k b/d of supply from reaching global markets via its Zawiya port near Tripoli. We closed our long June 2019 $70/bbl vs. short $75/bbl call spread last Thursday with a gain of 87.7%.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s latest credit data confirms our view the country’s credit cycle bottomed earlier this year: March Total Social Financing (TSF) increased CNY 2.8 trillion month-on-month vs. consensus expectation of CNY 1.7 trillion. This will support base metals in the coming months. We continue to expect Chinese authorities to expand credit in 2H19.Our long copper trade is up 0.7% since inception on March 7, 2019. We are closing out our tactical iron-ore trade – long 65% Fe vs. short 62% Fe at tonight’s close; it was up 22.9% at Monday’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell 4% from its February high on easing inflation concerns and as fears of an equity correction subsided. March U.S. PCE ex-food and -energy dropped to 1.79% yoy from 1.95% in February, while global equities rose 14% YTD. Our long gold recommendation is down 2.4% since last week, but is still up 3.6% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are behind schedule in their spring planting, according to USDA data. The top four American corn-producing states had not started planting by last week, while spring and winter wheat producing states are 11% and 3% behind schedule, mostly due to weather conditions. While delays in planting are always cause for concern, we are still early in the planting season, which gives farmers time to catch up. Feature Policy uncertainty vis-à-vis global oil supply was elevated by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov’s comments indicating policymakers are considering reviving an oil market-share war directed at U.S. shale-oil producers. Siluanov said prices could fall to $40/bbl or less, in the event. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now His remarks come on the back of statements from Russian government and oil company officials lobbying for higher output. These comments suggest there is a heavyweight Russian contingent fully supporting these demands for OPEC 2.0 to increase production in 2H19 when it meets in June. Otherwise, the threat implies, Russia will seriously consider leaving OPEC 2.0, and will launch its own market-share war against U.S. shale-oil production, led by the fast-growing Permian Basin in Texas. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now – nicely above $70/bbl in the Brent market. He also wants to maintain cooperation with OPEC 2.0, particularly its other putative leader, KSA. We continue to believe, however, KSA and Russia become less comfortable with Brent prices moving sharply above $80/bbl.4 Nonetheless, the threat posed by the U.S. shales is non-trivial: In our latest balances estimates, we raised our 2H19 U.S. output estimates to 12.53mm b/d, and slightly decreased our 2020 estimates to 13.35mm b/d”, led by a 1.17mm b/d and 0.84mm b/d increase in shale output this year and next (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales And GOM U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales And GOM However, Russia – and OPEC 2.0 generally – may be overestimating the rate of growth from U.S. shales going forward: In future research, we will be exploring the extent to which capital markets will restrain growth in the U.S. shales, as investors continue to demand higher returns. The days of growing shale production at any cost may be coming to an end. Russia’s Threat Is A Feint We believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint: A market-share war would damage the Rodina’s economy more than the balance sheets of U.S. shale producers, particularly those that hedge the first year or two of their production. The threat needs to be understood in the context of the deterioration of Russia’s position in Venezuela; the increasing tempo of U.S. military operations in its near abroad; and rapidly evolving global oil and gas trade flows, all of which are working against Russian interests and investments.5 The threat appears to be a not-too-subtle reminder of the havoc Russia still can create globally, should it choose to do so, as Vladimir Rouvinski noted recently re Russia’s Venezuela policy.6 Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. Russia’s GDP elasticity to oil prices is more than twice that of KSA’s, which we demonstrated last week.7 This means, from an economic standpoint, it benefits more from higher prices than the Kingdom, based on our modeling. Russia’s oil is exported to refiners and trading companies who pay whatever price is clearing the market, versus KSA, which relies more on direct investments in end-use markets to serve captive demand, and whose GDP has a higher sensitivity to EM economic growth. Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. The coalition’s production-cutting deal this year has reduced global supplies by 1.0mm b/d since the beginning of the year, lifting price from below $50/bbl to more than $70/bbl, in line with our forecast. These production cuts have been supported by strong global demand this year this, which, we expect, will persist in 2020. Of course, Russia could abandon the production-cutting deal with KSA, in the hope of severely reducing investment in U.S. shale-oil production. However, it also would accelerate the loss of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its own hydrocarbons sector, along with those of other OPEC 2.0 member states (Chart 4). Bottom Line: A Russian market-share war aimed at U.S. shale producers would run the very real risk of tanking Russia’s GDP and those of the rest of OPEC 2.0’s member states, as these economies lack the resilience and diversification of the U.S.’s GDP, particularly Texas’s. Even if its fiscal balances are in better shape now, Russia’s economy remains highly sensitive to Brent crude oil prices – moreso than KSA’s, and far moreso the U.S.’s (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Chart 5Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices BCA’s Balances Mostly Unchanged Our updated balances reflect the lower Venezuelan and Iranian output reported by OPEC’s survey of secondary sources (Table 1). As we have noted previously, we believe OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is sufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan output, and the limited losses on Iranian exports imposed by U.S. sanctions (Chart 6). Beyond that, however, the market will be severely stretched if an unplanned outage removes significant production from global supply. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Russia Posits Oil Market-Share War: Red Herring Or Real Threat? Russia Posits Oil Market-Share War: Red Herring Or Real Threat? On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC and Russia to lift supply in 2H19, following the successful draining of global inventories (Chart 7). We expect OPEC ex-Iran, Libya and Venezuela, led by KSA, will lift 2H19 supply by ~ 400k b/d vs. 1H19 levels, while we expect Russia’s output to rise 200k b/d. Chart 6 Chart 7Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by the renewed easing of monetary policy globally, which will redound to the benefit of EM demand, which also will benefit from the bottoming of China’s credit cycle. Indeed, the EIA added 130k b/d to its estimate of non-OECD demand for this year, on the back of stronger expected growth. We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, with EM growth accounting for 1.1mm b/d of growth this year and 1.3mm b/d next year. In levels, global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. Waivers On U.S. Iran Sanctions Will Be Extended We continue to expect waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil imports will be extended on May 2, owing to the still-tight supply conditions globally with Venezuela output collapsing and ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian oil already forced off the market. This has, as we’ve noted in our discussions of the New Political Economy of oil, strengthened OPEC 2.0’s hand. This will become apparent when the coalition meets in June to consider whether to increase production in 2H19, in line with our expectation. KSA, Russia and OPEC 2.0 member states will have sufficient data on hand to determine whether and by how much to lift output, in a manner that supports their GDPs. Indeed, on Wednesday, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, “We should do what is more expedient for us.”9 KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not. We also expect U.S. President Donald Trump to try to jawbone OPEC 2.0 into increasing production again, as he did in 2H18. However, we expect those demands to fall on deaf ears, unless fundamental supply dislocations warrant such action. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s strategy is working – it will have maximum flexibility re how it handles its production in 2H19, following the U.S. decision on waivers to its Iran oil-export sanctions on May 2. As we noted last month, KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/Non-OPEC oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It agreed in November to remove 1.2mm b/d off the market, in order to balance global supply and demand and reduce inventories.  Please see “Russia, OPEC may ditch oil deal to fight for market share: Russian minister,” published April 13, 2019, for a re-cap of Siluanov’s remarks. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019; and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’s Price Fulcrum,” published March 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil steadies as market focuses on supply risks,” published April 15 2019 by reuters.com 4      Please see “Putin Says No Imminent Decision on Oil Output Cuts,” published April 10, 2019, by The Moscow Times. 5      Please see for example, “Pentagon developing military options to deter Russian, Chinese influence in Venezuela,” published by cnn.com April 15, 2019; “Destroyer USS Ross Enters Black Sea, Fourth U.S. Warship Since 2019,” published by news.usni.org April 15, 2019; and “U.S. LNG exports pick up, with Europe a major buyer,” published by reuters.com March 7, 2019. 6      Please see “Russian-Venezuelan Relations at a Crossroads” by Vladimir Rouvinski, published by the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute in its February Latin American digest. 7      Please see “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy April 11, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8      We discuss the impact of higher oil prices on Russia’s economy in last week’s report, which is cited in footnote 6 above.  Russia’s GDP in 2017 was ~ U.S. $1.6 trillion, according to the World Bank, while the GDP of Texas was ~ $1.7 trillion, American Enterprise Institute. 9      Please see “Russia’s Novak: early to speak about options for oil output deal,” published reuters.com April 17, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image ​​​​​​​ Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights OPEC 2.0 will meet in June to decide whether to continue its production cuts into 2H19. Once again, the leaders are sending conflicting signals – KSA is subtly indicating OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts will need to be extended to year-end. Russia, not so much. Much will depend on whether the U.S. extends waivers on Iran oil-export sanctions when they expire May 2. Not surprisingly, Trump administration officials also are not providing much in the way of forward guidance to markets, other than to insist they want Iran’s exports at zero. Our modeling indicates OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – will need to raise production in 2H19, as markets tighten on the back of Venezuela’s collapse, continued unplanned outages (most recently in Libya) and still-strong demand. This aligns our view somewhat with that of Russia. That said, OPEC 2.0’s leaders – and member states – all benefit from higher prices, as we show below. Some, like Russia, more so than others – e.g., KSA, hard as that is to reconcile with their respective stances on production cuts. But none benefits if EM demand is crushed by high prices. It’s a delicate balancing act, given the aggregate GDP of EM commodity-importing countries exceeds that of commodity-exporting countries (Chart of the Week).1 Chart of the WeekEM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand EM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand EM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand We continue to expect Brent to trade at $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, given our expectation for global supply and demand. KSA and Russia remain the fulcrum of the oil market, as we argued recently, and anticipating their decision-making process remains the critical task for understanding the new political economy of oil.2 Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded opposing forces in Libya cease fighting this week. The country recently lifted oil production over 1mm b/d, but renewed fighting threatens this output. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) earlier this week tee’d up markets to expect higher infrastructure and transportation spending, which lifted steel and iron ore markets. Markets continue to tighten on the back of the Vale high-grade iron-ore supply losses, which could lift prices above $100/MT in the short term. Precious Metals: Neutral. Central banks continued buying gold in February, the World Gold Council reported this week. Central-bank holdings rose a net 51 tonnes in February bringing total additions to 90 tonnes in the first two months of the year. Agriculture: Underweight. The USDA lifted its estimate of global ending stocks for corn by 5.5mm tons for the 2018/19 crop year. With total use estimates unchanged at 1.13 billion tons, this raises ending stocks-to-use estimates, which will continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Feature KSA and Russia share a common feature in that both are petro states, and thus heavily dependent on crude and product exports to fund their governments and economies. Both suffered a near-death experience during the 2014-16 oil-market-share war launched by OPEC, and both have seen their GDPs slowly recover, following the successful production-cutting agreements they jointly engineered to drain excess inventories and restore balance to the market beginning in 2017 and renewed this year (Chart 2). Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. At first blush, it would be logical to assume KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs are driven by the same economic forces of oil supply and demand. In broad terms, they are. Both benefit from higher oil prices, given they are predominantly petro-economies, although Russia tends to benefit more as prices rise (Chart 3). In the post-GFC era, we find that a 1% increase in Brent prices lifts Russia’s GDP ~ 0.07%, while KSA’s goes up ~ 0.03%. Another way of saying this is Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. Chart 2KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Chart 3Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Looking a bit deeper into KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs’ sensitivities to Brent prices, we modeled income growth for both using our Brent forecast (Table 1), the futures markets’ forward curve and compare both to the World Bank’s expectation (Chart 4, bottom panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Given our expectation for EM GDP growth (Chart of the Week), we expect KSA’s GDP to show relatively strong growth with GDP up ~ 5.4% this year and ~ 3.5% next year, propelled partly by higher oil prices (Chart 4, top panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Russia’s GDP goes up ~ 0.25% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. We expect Russia’s GDP to dip then recover in 4Q19, then rise 3.5% by the end of 3Q20 before tapering off toward the end of 2020. This is not surprising given the trajectory for Brent prices in our forecasts and in the futures curves, and the sensitivity of Russia’s GDP to oil prices.We found a similar impact of EM oil demand on Russia and KSA GDPs when controlling for EM FX rates instead of Brent prices (Chart 5).3 Chart 4Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Chart 5While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand U.S. Waivers Dictate OPEC 2.0’s Decision On Production KSA has indicated it sees a need to extend OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal into 2H19, when the coalition’s ministers meet in June. Of late, Khalid al-Falih, KSA’s oil minister, is indicating no further cuts in the Kingdom’s output are needed, however. Russia’s a bit of a cipher. President Vladimir Putin this week stated Russia will continue to cooperate with KSA vis-à-vis managing production, although his energy minister, Alexander Novak, has indicated he sees no reason for extending OPEC 2.0’s production deal. Both sides are waiting on fundamental data, and the decision of the U.S. on its waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions. There’s also the ever-likely collapse of Venezuela to consider, and renewed violence in Libya, both of which argue against letting the waivers expire. The Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. The countries granted waivers on U.S. sanctions against Iranian crude oil imports appear to be exercising their option to lift additional barrels, based on data showing loadings out of Iran increased for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 6 and Table 2).4 Loadings out of Iran rose to 1.30mm b/d in March, from 1.24mm b/d in February. Chart 6 Table 2Iran Exports By Country 2018-2019 (‘000 b/d) Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions Bottom Line: We continue to expect U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions will be extended to year end in some form. The collapse of Venezuela and renewed violence in Libya show how tenuously balanced oil markets are at present. Going into a general election in the U.S. next year, the Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. When they meet in June, ministers from OPEC 2.0 member states will be ideally set up to respond to the Trump administration’s decision on waivers for Iranian oil imports, which expire May 2. We are closing our June 2019 $70 vs. $75/bbl call spread, as the position is close to expiry.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In the post-GFC world, we find total EM oil demand rises ~ 0.4% for each 1% rise in EM commodity-importers’ GDP, while it only rises ~ 0.3% for each 1% rise in EM commodity exporters’ GDP, based on our modeling. According to World Banks’ constant 2010 USD series, EM commodity importers’ GDP represented 66% of total EM GDP in 2018, up from 56% in 2010. The EM income elasticity of oil demand has remained at roughly ~ 0.60 from 2000 to now, meaning a 1% increase in EM GDP – hence EM income – lifts oil demand by ~ 0.6%. This has been remarkably stable pre-GFC, post-GFC and from 2000 to now. 2      The new political economy of oil is a continuing theme in our research. For an extended discussion of this theme, please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy on February 21 and March 21, 2019. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      When using EM FX rates instead of Brent prices as an explanatory variable, we find KSA’s GDP still increases a little more than 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand, but Russia’s rises closer to 0.6%. NB: All GDP measures use historical World Bank data, and BCA Research estimates using the Bank’s projections in constant 2010 USD.  We proxy EM oil demand using non-OECD oil consumption.  KSA’s production is crude oil only, while Russia’s production is crude and liquids. 4      For a discussion of the waivers’ optionality, please see our BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published on March 21, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights So what? EM elections bring opportunities as well as risks. Why?   Emerging market equities will benefit as long as China’s stimulus does not fizzle. Modi is on track to win India’s election – which is a positive – though risks lie to the downside. Thailand’s next cycle of political instability is beginning, but we are still cyclically overweight. Indonesia will defy the global “strongman” narrative – go overweight tactically. Populism remains a headwind to Philippine and Turkish assets. Wait for Europe to stabilize before pursuing Turkish plays. Feature Chart 1Risks of China's Stimulus Have Shifted To The Upside Risks of China's Stimulus Have Shifted To The Upside Risks of China's Stimulus Have Shifted To The Upside China’s official PMIs in March came at just the right time for jittery emerging market investors awaiting the all-important March credit data. EM equities, unlike the most China-sensitive plays, have fallen back since late January, after outperforming their DM peers since October (Chart 1). This occurred amid a stream of negative economic data and policy uncertainties: China’s mixed signals, prolonged U.S.-China trade negotiations, the Fed’s extended “pause” in rate hikes, the inversion of the yield curve, Brexit, and general European gloom. We have been constructive on EM plays since February 20, when we determined that the risks of China’s stimulus had shifted to the upside. However, several of the EM bourses that are best correlated with Chinese stimulus are already richly valued (the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc). The good news is that a series of elections this spring provide a glimpse into the internal politics of several of these countries, which will help determine which ones will outperform if we are correct that global growth will find its footing by Q3.  First, A Word On Turkey … More Monetary Expansion On The Way Local elections in Turkey on March 31 have dealt a black eye to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has lost control of the capital Ankara for the first time since 2004. Erdogan has also (arguably) conceded the mayoralty of Istanbul, the economic center of the country, where he first rose to power in 1994. Other cities also fell to the opposition. Vote-counting is over and the aftermath will involve a flurry of accusations, investigations, and possibly unrest. Erdogan’s inability to win elections with more than a slim majority is a continual source of insecurity for him and his administration. This weekend’s local elections reinforce the point. The AKP alone failed to cross 45% in terms of popular votes. Combined with its traditional ally – the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – it received 51.6% of the total vote (in the 2015 elections, the two parties combined for over 60% of the vote). While losing the local elections will not upset the balance in parliament, it is a rebuke to Erdogan over his economic policy and a warning to the AKP for the future. Erdogan does not face general elections until 2023. But judging by his response to the first serious challenge to his rule – the Gezi Park protests of May 2013 – his reaction will be to double down on unorthodox, populist economic policy. Chart 2Erdogan Will Respond With Populist Politics Erdogan Will Respond With Populist Politics Erdogan Will Respond With Populist Politics Back in 2013, the government responded to the domestic challenge through expansive monetary policy. The central bank gave extraordinary liquidity provisions to the banking system. Chart 2 clearly shows that the liquidity injections began with the Gezi protests. These provisions only paused in 2016-17, when global growth rebounded on the back of Chinese stimulus and EM asset prices rose, supporting Turkey’s currency and enabling the central bank to hold off. Today, the severe contraction in GDP (by 3% in Q4 2018), with a negative global backdrop, will likely end Erdogan’s patience with tight monetary policy.1 To illustrate how tight policy has been, note that bank loan growth denominated in lira is contracting at a rate of 17% in real terms. Given the authorities’ populist track record, rising unemployment will likely lead to further “backdoor” liquidity easing. A new bout of unorthodox monetary policy will be negative for domestic bank equities, local-currency bonds, and the lira. As one of the first EM currencies and bourses to begin outperforming in September 2018, Turkey has been at the forefront of the EM mini-rally over the past six months. But with global growth still tepid, this mini-cycle is likely to come to an end for the time being. Watch for the bottoming in Chinese followed by European growth before seeking new opportunities in Turkish assets. Erdogan’s domestic troubles could also prompt him to renew his foreign combativeness, which raises tail risks to Turkish risk assets, such as through U.S. punitive measures. Last year, Erdogan responded to the economic downswing by toning down his belligerent rhetoric and mending fences with Europe and the U.S. However, a reversion to populism may require him to seek a convenient distraction. The U.S. is withdrawing from Syria and the Middle East, leaving Turkey in a position where it needs other relationships to pursue its interests. Russia is a key example. Currently Erdogan is bickering with the U.S. over the planned purchase of a missile defense system from Russia. But the consequence is that relations with the U.S. could deteriorate further, potentially leading to new sanctions. Bottom Line: Turkey is still in the grip of populist politics and will respond to the recession and domestic discontent with easier monetary policy which would bode ill for the lira and lira-denominated assets. The stabilization of the European economy is necessary before investors attempt to take advantage of the de-rating of Turkish assets. India: Focus On Modi’s Political Capital We have long maintained that Modi is likely to stay in power after India’s general election on April 11-May 19. His coalition has recovered in public opinion polling since the Valentine’s Day attack on Indian security forces in Indian Kashmir (Chart 3). The government responded to the attacks by ordering airstrikes on February 26 against Pakistani targets in Pakistani territory for the first time since 1974. The attack was theatrical but the subsequent rally-around-the-flag effect gave Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a badly needed popular boost. The market rallied on the back of Modi’s higher chances of reelection. Modi is the more business-friendly candidate, as opposed to his chief rival, Rahul Gandhi of the Indian Congress Party. Nevertheless, election risks still lie to the downside: Modi and his party are hardly likely to outperform their current 58% share of seats in the lower house of parliament, since the conditions for a wave election – similar to the one that delivered the BJP a single-party majority in 2014 – do not exist today. While the range of outcomes is extremely broad (Chart 4), the current seat projections shown in Chart 3 put Modi’s coalition right on the majority line. Meanwhile his power is already waning in the state legislatures. Chart 3 Chart 4 Thus Modi’s reform agenda has lost momentum, at least until he can form a new coalition. This will take time and markets may ultimately be disappointed by the insufficiency of the tools at his disposal in his second term. Indian equities are the most expensive in the EM space, and only more so after the sharp rally in March on the back of the Kashmir clash and Modi’s recovering reelection chances (Chart 5). Additional clashes with Pakistan are not unlikely during the election season, despite the current appearance of calm. This is because Modi’s patriotic dividend in the polls could fade. Since even voters who lack confidence in Modi as a leader believe that Pakistan is a serious threat (Chart 6), he could be encouraged to stir up tensions yet again. This would be playing with fire but he may be tempted to do it if his polling relapses or if Pakistan takes additional actions. Chart 5...And Lofty Valuations ...And Lofty Valuations ...And Lofty Valuations Chart 6 Further escalation would be positive for markets only so long as it boosts Modi’s chances of reelection without triggering a wider conflict. Yet the standoff revealed that these two powers continue to run high risks of miscalculation: their signaling is not crystal clear; deterrence could fail. Thus, further escalation could become harder to control and could spook the financial markets.2 Even if Modi eschews any further jingoism, his lead is tenuous. First, the economic slowdown is taking a toll – even the official unemployment rate is rising (Chart 7) and the government has been caught manipulating statistics. There is no time for the economy to recover enough to change voters’ minds. Opinion polls show that even BJP voters are not very happy about the past five years. They care more about jobs and inflation than they do about terrorism, and a majority thinks these factors have deteriorated over Modi’s five-year term (Chart 8). Chart 7Manipulated Stats Can't Hide Deteriorating Economy Manipulated Stats Can't Hide Deteriorating Economy Manipulated Stats Can't Hide Deteriorating Economy   Chart 8 If the polling does not change, Modi will win with a weak mandate at best. A minority government or a hung parliament is possible. A Congress Party-led coalition, which would be a market-negative event, cannot be ruled out. The latter especially would prompt a big selloff, but anything short of a single-party majority for Modi will register as a disappointment. Bottom Line: There may be a relief rally after Modi is seen to survive as prime minister, but his likely weak political capital in parliament will be disappointing for markets. The market will want additional, ambitious structural reforms on top of what Modi has already done, but he will struggle to deliver in the near term. While we are structurally bullish, in the context of this election cycle –  which includes rising oil prices that hinder Indian equity outperformance – we urge readers to remain underweight Indian equities within emerging markets. Thailand: An Outperformer Despite Quasi-Military Rule Chart A new cycle of political instability is beginning in Thailand as the country transitions back into civilian rule after five years under a military junta. However, this is not an immediate problem for investors, who should remain overweight Thai equities relative to other EMs on a cyclical time horizon. The source of Thai instability is inequality – both regional and economic. Regionally, 49% of the population resides in the north, northeast, and center, deprived of full representation by the royalist political and military establishment seated in Bangkok (Map 1). Economically, household wealth is extremely unevenly distributed. Thailand’s mean-to-median wealth ratio is among the highest in the world (Chart 9). Eventually these factors will drive the regional populist movement – embodied by exiled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family and allies – to reassert itself against the elites (the military, the palace, and the civil bureaucracy). New demands will be made for greater representation and a fairer distribution of wealth. The result will be mass street protests and disruptions of business sentiment and activity that will grab headlines sometime in the coming years, as occurred most recently in 2008-10 and 2013-14.   Chart 9 Chart 10Social Spending Did Not Hinder Populism Social Spending Did Not Hinder Populism Social Spending Did Not Hinder Populism The seeds of the next rebellion are apparent in the results of the election on March 24. The junta has sought to undercut the populists by increasing infrastructure spending and social welfare (Chart 10), and controlling rice prices for farmers. Yet the populists have still managed to garner enough seats in the lower house to frustrate the junta’s plans for a seamless transition to “guided” civilian rule. The final vote count is not due until May 9 but unofficial estimates suggest that the opposition parties have won a majority or very nearly a majority in the lower house. This is despite the fact that the junta rewrote the constitution, redesigned the electoral system to be proportional (thus watering down the biggest opposition parties), and hand-picked the 250-seat senate. Such results point to the irrepressible population dynamics of the “Red Shirt” opposition in Thailand, which has won every free election since 2001. Nevertheless, the military and its allies (the “Yellow Shirt” political establishment) are too powerful at present for the opposition to challenge them directly. The junta has several tools to shape the election results to its liking in the short run.3 It would not have gone ahead with the election were this not the case. As a result, the cycle of instability is only likely to pick up over time. Investors should note the silver lining to the period of military rule: it put a halt to the spiral of polarization at a critical time for the country. The unspoken origin of the political crisis was the royal succession. The traditional elites could not tolerate the rise of a populist movement that flirted with revolutionary ideas at the same time that the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej drew near to passing away. This combination threatened both a succession crisis and possibly the survival of the traditional political system, a constitutional monarchy backed by a powerful army. With the 2014 coup and five-year period of military rule (lengthy even by Thai standards), the military drew a stark red line: there is no alternative to the constitutional monarchy. The royalist faction had its bottom line preserved, at the cost of an erosion of governance and democracy. The result is that going forward, there is a degree of policy certainty. Chart 11Thai Confidence Has Bottomed Thai Confidence Has Bottomed Thai Confidence Has Bottomed Chart 12Strong Demand Sans Risk Of Being Overleveraged Strong Demand Sans Risk Of Being Overleveraged Strong Demand Sans Risk Of Being Overleveraged The long-term trend of Thai consumer confidence tells the story (Chart 11). Optimism surged with the election of populist Thaksin in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis in 2001. The long national conflict that ensued – in which the elites and generals exiled Thaksin and ousted his successors, and the country dealt with a global financial crisis and natural disasters – saw consumer confidence decline. However, the coup of 2014 and the royal succession (to be completed May 4-6 with the new king’s coronation) has reversed this trend, with confidence trending upward since then. Revolution is foreclosed yet the population is looking up. Military rule is generally disinflationary in Thailand and this time around it initiated a phase of private sector deleveraging. Yet the economy has held up reasonably well. Private consumption has improved along with confidence and investment has followed, albeit sluggishly (Chart 12). The advantage is that Thailand has had slow-burn growth and has avoided becoming overleveraged again, like many EM peers. Chart 13Thailand Outperformed EM Despite Military Interference Thailand Outperformed EM Despite Military Interference Thailand Outperformed EM Despite Military Interference Furthermore, Thailand is not vulnerable to external shocks. It has a 7% current account surplus and ample foreign exchange reserves. It is not too exposed to China, either economically or geopolitically: China makes up only 12% of exports, while Bangkok has no maritime-territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. In fact, Thailand maintains good diplomatic relations with China and yet has a mutual defense treaty with the United States (the oldest such treaty in Asia). It is perhaps the most secure of any of the Southeast Asian states from the point of view of the secular U.S.-China conflict. Finally, if our forecast proves wrong and political instability returns sooner than we expect, it is important to remember that Thailand’s domestic political conflicts rarely affect equity prices in a lasting way. Global financial crises and natural disasters have had a greater impact on Thai assets over the past two decades than the long succession crisis. Thailand has outperformed both EM and EM Asia during the period of military interference, though democratic Indonesia has done better (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Thailand’s political risks are domestic and stem from regional and economic inequality, which will result in a revived opposition movement that will clash with the traditional military and political elite. This clash will eventually create policy uncertainty and political risk. But it will need to build up over time, since the military junta has strict control over the current environment. Meanwhile macro fundamentals are positive. Indonesia: Rejecting Strongman Populism We do not expect any major surprises from the Indonesian election. Instead, we expect policy continuity, a marginal positive for the country’s equities. However, stocks are overvalued, overexposed to the financial sector,4 and vulnerable if global growth does not stabilize. Chart 14 The most important trend since the near collapse of Indonesia in the late 1990s has been the stabilization of the secular democratic political system and peaceful transition of power. That trend looks to continue with President Joko Widodo’s likely victory in the election on April 17. President Jokowi defeated former general Prabowo Subianto in the 2014 election and has maintained a double-digit lead over his rival in the intervening years (Chart 14). Prabowo is a nationalist and would-be strongman leader who was accused of human rights violations during the fall of his father-in-law Suharto’s dictatorship in 1998. Emerging market polls are not always reliable but a lead of this size for this long suggests that the public knows Prabowo and does not prefer him to Jokowi. In fact he never polled above 35% support while Jokowi has generally polled above 45%. The incumbent advantage favors Jokowi. Household consumption is perking up slightly and consumer confidence is high (see Chart 11 above). Wages have received a big boost during Jokowi’s term and are now picking up again, in real as well as nominal terms and for rural as well as urban workers. Jokowi’s minimum wage law has not resulted in extravagant windfalls to labor, as was feared, and inflation remains under control (Chart 15). Government spending has been ramped up ahead of the vote (and yet Jokowi is not profligate). All of these factors support the incumbent. Real GDP growth is sluggish but has trended slightly upward for most of Jokowi’s term. Chart 15Favorable Economic Conditions Support Incumbent Jokowi Favorable Economic Conditions Support Incumbent Jokowi Favorable Economic Conditions Support Incumbent Jokowi Chart 16 Jokowi has been building badly needed infrastructure with success and has been attracting FDI to try to improve productivity (Chart 16). This is the most positive feature of his government and is set to continue if he wins. A coalition in parliament has largely supported him after an initial period of drift. The biggest challenge for Jokowi and Indonesia are lackluster macro fundamentals. For instance, twin deficits, which show a lack of savings and invite pressure on the currency, which has been very weak. The twin deficits have worsened since 2012 because China’s economic maturation has forced a painful transition on Indonesia, which it has not yet recovered from. Chart 17 There is some risk to governance as Jokowi has chosen Ma’ruf Amin, the top cleric of the world’s largest Muslim organization, as his running mate. Jokowi wants to counteract criticisms that he is not Islamic enough (or is a hidden Christian), which cost his ally the governorship of Jakarta in 2017. However, Jokowi is not a strongman leader like Erdogan in Turkey, whose combination of Islamism and populism has been disastrous for the country’s economy. As mentioned, Jokowi will be defeating the would-be strongman Prabowo, who has also allied with Islamism. In fact, Indonesia is a relatively secular and modern Muslim-majority country and Amin is the definition of an establishment religious leader. The security forces have succeeded in cracking down on militancy in the past decade, greatly improving Indonesia’s stability and security as a whole (Chart 17). Governance is weak on some measures in Indonesia, but Jokowi is better than the opposition on this front and neither his own policies nor his vice presidential pick signals a shift in a Turkey-like, Islamist, populist direction. Bottom Line: We should see Indonesian equities continue to outperform EM and EM Asia as long as China’s stimulus efforts do not collapse and global growth picks up as expected in the second half of the year. Peaceful democratic transitions and economic policy continuity have been repeatedly demonstrated in Indonesia despite the inherent difficulties of developing a populous, multi-ethnic archipelago. Nationalism is a constant risk but it would be more virulent under Jokowi’s opponent. The Philippines: Embracing Strongman Populism Chart 18 The May 13 midterm elections mark the three-year halfway point in President Rodrigo Duterte’s presidential term. Duterte is still popular, with approval ratings in the 75%-85% range. These numbers likely overstate his support, but it is clearly above 50% and superior to that of his immediate predecessors (Chart 18). Further, his daughter’s party, Faction for Change, has gained national popularity, reinforcing the signal that he can expand his power base in the vote. The senate is the root of opposition to Duterte. His supporters control nine out of 24 seats. But of the twelve senators up for election, only three are Duterte’s supporters. So he could make gains in the senate which would increase his ability to push through controversial constitutional reforms. (He needs 75% of both houses of parliament plus a majority in a national referendum to make constitutional changes.) In terms of the economy, we maintain the view that Duterte is a true “populist” – pursuing nominal GDP growth to the neglect of everything else. His fiscal policy of tax cuts and big spending have supercharged the economy but macro fundamentals have deteriorated (Chart 19). He has broken the budget deficit ceiling of 3%, up from 2.2% in 2017. His reflationary policies have turned the current account surplus into a deficit, weighing heavily on the peso, which peaked against other EM currencies when he came to power in 2016 (Chart 20). Inflation peaked last year but we expect it to remain elevated over the course of Duterte’s leadership. He has appointed a reputed dove, Benjamin Diokno, as his new central banker. Chart 19Reflationary Policies Created Twin Deficits... Reflationary Policies Created Twin Deficits... Reflationary Policies Created Twin Deficits...   Chart 20...And Twin Deficits Weigh On The Peso ...And Twin Deficits Weigh On The Peso ...And Twin Deficits Weigh On The Peso Rule of law has deteriorated, as symbolized by the removal of the chief justice of the Supreme Court for questioning Duterte’s extension of martial law in Mindanao. Duterte also imprisoned his top critic in the senate, Leila de Lima, on trumped-up drug charges. He tried but failed to do so with Senator Antonio Trillanes, a former army officer and quondam coup ring-leader who has substantial support in the military. The army is pushing back against any prosecution of Trillanes, and against Duterte’s ongoing détente with China, prompting Duterte to warn of the risk of a coup.   Duterte’s China policy is to attract Chinese investment while avoiding a conflict in the South China Sea. His administration has failed to downgrade relations with the U.S. thus far, but further attempts could be made. This strategy could make the Philippines a beneficiary of Chinese investment if it succeeds. However, China knows that the Philippine public is very pro-American (more so than most countries) and that Duterte could be replaced by a pro-U.S. president in as little as three years, so it is not blindly pouring money into the country. Pressure to finance the current account deficit will persist. If pro-Duterte parties gain seats in the senate the question will be whether he comes within reach of the 75% threshold required for constitutional changes. His desire to change the country into a federal system has not gained momentum so far. He claims he will stand down at the end of his single six-year term but he could conceivably attempt to use any constitutional change to stay in power longer. If the revision goes forward, it will be a hugely divisive and unproductive use of political capital. Bottom Line: The Philippine equity market is highly coordinated with China’s credit cycle and so should benefit from China’s stimulus measures this year (as well as the Fed’s backing off). Nevertheless, Philippine equities are overvalued and macro fundamentals and quality of governance have all deteriorated. Duterte’s emphasis on building infrastructure and human capital is positive, but the means are ill-matched to the ends: savings are insufficient and inflation will be a persistent problem. We would favor South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia over the Philippines in the EM space. Investment Implications We expect China’s stimulus to be significant and to generate increasingly positive economic data over the course of the year. China is a key factor in the bottoming of global growth, which in turn will catalyze the conditions for a weaker dollar and outperformance of international equities relative to U.S. equities. Caveat: In the very near term, it is possible that China plays could relapse and EM stocks could fall further due to the fact that Chinese and global growth have not yet clearly bottomed. We are structurally bullish India, but recommend sitting on the sidelines until financial markets discount the disappointment of a Modi government with insufficient political capital to pursue structural reforms as ambitious as the ones undertaken in 2014-19. Go long Thai equities relative to EM on a cyclical basis. Stay long Thai local-currency government bonds relative to their Malaysian counterparts. Go long Indonesian equities relative to EM on a tactical basis. Maintain vigilance regarding Russian and Taiwanese equities: the Ukrainian election, Russia’s involvement in Venezuela, and the unprecedented Taiwanese presidential primary election reinforce our view that Russia and Taiwan are potential geopolitical “black swans” this year.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, “Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal?” March 21, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2      See Sanjeev Miglani and Drazen Jorgic, “India, Pakistan threatened to unleash missiles at each other: sources,” Reuters, March 16, 2019, available at uk.reuters.com.  3      The junta can disqualify candidates and rerun elections in the same district without that candidate if the candidate is found to have violated a range of very particular laws on campaigning and use of social media. Also, the Election Commission is largely an instrument of the Bangkok establishment and can allocate seats according to the junta’s interests. 4      See BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, “Indonesia: It Is Not All About The Fed,” March 7, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Clearly the president will benefit from being vindicated in such an authoritative way. He will not only avoid any mushrooming scandal, which can hurt a president seeking reelection, but will also gain sympathy from at least some voters for having been falsely accused. While Mueller technically did not exonerate Trump from charges of obstruction of justice, he also did not make any such charges. This means that House Democrats could conceivably still use the Mueller report’s evidence of potential obstruction to impeach Trump. But if they do they will fail. Attorney General Anthony Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, have both determined that there was no obstruction. With the special counsel having ruled out any collusion or even coordination with Russia, Trump will remain secure among grassroots Republicans. Hence the senators in his party will not convict him and any impeachment trial will be a charade. Thus to some extent Trump’s odds of reelection must be going up. Right? Wrong. The problem is that any positive impact on Trump’s reelection odds from the Mueller report ultimately matters much less than the inversion of the yield curve on March 22. This curve is the most reliable indicator of forthcoming economic recession. If the inversion is deep and persistent then it makes an election year recession probable. Presidents can survive a grand scandal, but they live or die by recessions. There have only been two presidents in the post-Civil War era who won reelection despite a recession in the calendar year of the election. These were William McKinley in 1900 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Yet in 1900, the recession was drawing to a close and economic conditions were better than when McKinley first took office in 1896. And in 1904, the recession technically ended in August, before the fall campaign began. In ten other cases the ruling party has lost the White House amid a recessionary environment. In recent decades yield curve inversion precedes recessions by anywhere from five to sixteen months. The average is eleven months. This means that if the 10yr/3mo signal proves accurate once again, Trump would get extremely lucky to see the economy rebounding by the fall campaign. Granted, the yield curve could send a false signal. For instance, some take the view that the term premium is historically low for structural reasons and that this makes inversion easier and less indicative than in the past. However, when it comes to politics, President Trump cannot afford to assume that this time is different. It is already clear from his waivers on Iranian oil sanctions and trade negotiations with China that he lives in great fear of the business cycle expiring before November 3 next year, when it will be very long-in-the-tooth. Trump is also more vulnerable to recession than the usual president. He is a self-styled commercial leader – a CEO president and Washington outsider who staked his credibility on the claim that he will create jobs and grow the economy. Trump can possibly survive an election with a large trade deficit or a surge in immigrants on the southern border because these developments would highlight the very policy concerns that he did so much to emphasize: they would not necessarily invalidate his approach. But if unemployment is rising, it is hard to see how this president, let alone any other, could wriggle out of it. If he tries to shift the blame to the Federal Reserve or China in any concrete way, the equity market will riot and exacerbate the downturn. The takeaway is, first, that we should continue to see President Trump show relative risk aversion on market-relevant matters like Iran, China, and the “stimulus cliff” affecting the U.S. budget next fiscal year. Second, that if the current economic wobbles pass and the economic expansion gets a new breath of life, then Trump’s chances of retaining the White House will soar. Trump’s reelection odds have important investment consequences. His reelection will entail policy continuity and the maintenance of a low-tax, deregulatory environment that encourages animal spirits and pads corporate earnings. The more likely it appears that Trump will lose the White House, the more animal spirits will sag. A Democratic win will mean yet another violent vacillation in U.S. policy, like 2016, which will cause a spike in policy uncertainty. It will also bring a probable increase in taxes (including possibly the corporate rate) and regulations across a range of sectors. If a Democrat wins in 2020, he or she will most likely have a fairly left-wing agenda, due to trends in the party, and whoever takes the White House will likely also take the Senate. Since the same goes for the House, a presidential win will deliver full Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches: a window of minimal political constraints in which a sweeping piece of legislation can be enacted, like in 2009 or 2017. Image In short, a Trump loss would not only mean the end of the status quo but likely a united government in favor of a rather left-leaning Democratic agenda. If the market has reason to believe a recession is looming, and that a recession will occasion a lurch to the “anti-business” side of the Left, then the impact on investment decisions and capex intentions will be negative and immediate. Economic policy uncertainty has nowhere to go but up. Matt Gertken,  Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Analysis on Turkey is published below. The key reason why we believe the ongoing EM rally will falter is that EM corporate earnings have begun to contract. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices from selling off. The recent pick-up in China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests the bottom in EM corporate profit growth will only occur toward the end of 2019. There are several key differences between the economic backdrops and financial markets signposts between now and 2016. The current profiles of both EM and DM share prices are a close match to those in 2011-2012 when the strong rally in the first quarter was followed by a major selloff in the second quarter. Feature The common narrative in the market is that the current policy backdrop – a pause by the Fed and policy stimulus from China – is a repeat of early 2016. As such, market participants expect moves in global risk assets to be analogous to those during that period. We too could easily adopt this simple narrative, and recommend investors to chase EM higher. Instead, we have chosen to take on the very difficult task of expounding why 2019 is not a repeat of 2016 in EM and China-related financial markets. Based on this, our view remains that investors should not be chasing the current EM rally. The essential pillar of our negative thesis on EM is that their corporate profits will contract this year. This will be bad news not only for EM share prices but also for EM credit markets and currencies. Chart I-1 illustrates that during the past 10 years, EM stock prices plunged every time profit contraction commenced. Having rallied meaningfully in the past three months, EM financial markets will sell off as EM corporate earnings begin to shrink. Chart I-1EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract The basis for EM profit contraction is the continued slowdown in China. Chart I-2 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EM EPS growth by about 12 months. Hence, the recent pick-up in the former entails the bottom in the latter only toward the end of 2019. Chart I-2EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 In brief, even assuming China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse has bottomed and will improve going forward, EM EPS contraction will deepen for now. EM share prices are unlikely to embark on a cyclical bull market until EM EPS growth bottoms. Earnings Versus Interest Rates Lower interest rates are typically bullish for both equity and credit markets so long as corporate profits do not contract. However, when EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. In general, when discussing the effect of interest rates on equities, one should differentiate between economic and financial linkages. Given the cornerstone narrative of this EM rally has been declining U.S. interest rate expectations, we examine the nexus between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. The economic link refers to the impact of borrowing costs on aggregate spending, and hence corporate profits. The pertinent question is as follows: Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Chart I-3 illustrates that as of the end of February, while Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean exports to the U.S. expanded by 10% from a year ago, their shipments to China contracted by 10%. Chart I-3Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Hence, the slowdown in EM corporate profits has not been caused by Fed policy. U.S. domestic demand in general and imports in particular have so far been expanding at a healthy pace and they have not been instrumental to EM corporate earnings cycles (Chart I-4). This signifies that lower U.S. interest rates should not have a material impact on EM growth, and thereby corporate profits. Chart I-4EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. Notably, one can argue that the economic and financial market dynamics that prevailed in 2018 worked in the opposite direction: It was China’s slowdown that ultimately imperiled U.S. manufacturing growth, causing U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off, thereby forcing a reversal in the Fed’s stance. The financial link refers to a declining discount rate for EM risk assets as U.S. interest rates drop. A drop in the discount rate lifts the present value of future cash flows and boosts risk asset prices. However, EM equity multiples have not been historically negatively correlated with U.S. bond yields, as shown on the top panel of Chart I-5. Besides, EM credit spreads do not always positively correlate with U.S. borrowing costs, as widely expected (Chart I-5, middle panel). Chart I-5U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship Further, EM currencies have not been negatively correlated with either U.S. bond yields or with the interest rate differential between the U.S. and EM (Chart I-5, bottom panel). As to EM local bond yields, especially in high-yielding markets, it is EM exchange rates that drive EM domestic bond yields and their differential over U.S. Treasurys. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. Finally, Chart I-6 illustrates the relationship between the returns on EM assets on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other. This chart corroborates the evidence from Chart I-5 – that the relationship between U.S. interest rates and EM asset markets is not stable. Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship Even though in the short term financial markets in developing countries seem to react to changes in U.S. interest rates, in the medium and long run there is no stable relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. Treasury yields. In short, lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. How do we explain the absence of a strong relationship between these financial and economic variables? Our take is as follows: When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices and credit markets from selling off. That is why there is no clear and strong relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Corporate earnings are the key to sustaining this EM rally. What is needed for EM corporate profits to recover is a revival in Chinese demand. The latter is not yet imminent, implying that EM assets will likely hit an air pocket before a more durable bottom occurs. Are lower interest rates in China a justification for the latest EM equity rebound? Chart I-7 demonstrates that both EM and Chinese investable stock indexes positively correlate with interest rates in China. The reason is because all of them are driven by Chinese growth: When growth accelerates, these share prices and Chinese local bond yields rise, and vice versa. Chart I-7Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Bottom Line: Lower interest rates in the U.S. or in China in and of themselves do not constitute sufficient conditions for a cyclical rally in EM share prices. The primary driver of EM share prices in the past 10 years has been Chinese growth, because the latter has a considerable bearing on EM corporate profits. For now, there have been no substantive signs of a growth revival in China. How 2019 Is Different From 2016 We elaborated in detail on how the current round of policy stimulus in China differs from the one in 2015-‘16 in our report titled, Dissecting China’s Stimulus, and will not discuss it here. Instead, we offer several economic and financial signposts illustrating how the EM/China outlook and financial market dynamics in 2019 will differ from those of 2016: Presently, there is no meaningful policy stimulus for the real estate market in China, and property sales will continue to shrink (Chart I-8). This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015-‘16 when the Chinese central bank literally monetized excessive housing inventories by financing residential real estate via its Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) facility. The ensuing surge in property demand substantially contributed to the business cycle recovery on the mainland in 2016-‘17. Chart I-8A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing EM share prices have been underperforming the DM equity index since late December. In contrast, EM began outperforming DM in January 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December In early 2016, the pace of EM profit contraction stabilized after 18 months of deepening shrinkage (Chart I-1 on page 1). What’s more, investor sentiment on EM was very downbeat in early 2016. Presently, the EM profit contraction is just commencing, and its rate of change will bottom only in late 2019, as per Chart I-2 on page 2. In the meantime, investors are ill prepared for bad news, as their sentiment on EM is extremely buoyant. Finally, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar began selling off in early 2016, corroborating the EM rally. This year the broad measure of the trade-weighted dollar has not sold off. Hence, the dollar has not yet confirmed the EM rebound (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices Is 2019 Akin To 2012? In terms of share-price patterns, the current profiles of both EM and DM are a close match to those in 2011-2012 (Chart I-11). Following a major plunge in the second half of 2011, share prices bottomed in December 2011 and rallied sharply in the following three months. Not only is the duration similar to what transpired with share prices in 2011-’12, but also the magnitude (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? As to the economic backdrop in 2011-‘12, the euro area was in the midst of a credit crisis and China/EM growth was slowing due to the preceding Chinese policy tightening. After the strong rally in January-March 2012, both EM and DM bourses sold off sharply in the second quarter of 2012, re-testing their late 2011 lows. Critically, like the present and unlike early 2016, EM stocks were underperforming DM ones during the early 2012 rally. Lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. On the surface, it appears that the magic words of the European Central Bank President Mario Draghi that “…the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro” that halted the global selloff. Yet, in reality, Draghi’s speech was the trigger for – not the cause of – the markets’ reversal. In retrospect, the primary reason for a major bottom in global risk assets in June 2012 was the bottom in the global business cycle in the second half of 2012 (Chart I-12, top panel). Chart I-12Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed As can be seen on this panel, global equity prices are often coincident with “soft” economic data like global manufacturing PMI. Global stocks typically lead “hard” economic data and corporate profits but do not always lead “soft” data. Presently, the bottom in global manufacturing and trade is not yet in sight. The bottom panel of Chart I-12 shows that Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. These electronics parts are inputs into final goods; when producers of these goods plan to increase production they first order these parts. As a result, trade in these electronics parts lead the broader trade/manufacturing cycle. Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. On the whole, odds are that China’s business cycle as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet hit a durable bottom and are not about to recover. Countries/industries leveraged to China will experience a meaningful profit contraction. Hence, there is a significant probability that EM stocks re-test their recent lows akin to what transpired in 2012. Investment Considerations There is no meaningful evidence indicating that China’s business cycle and global trade and manufacturing have bottomed. Global cyclical equity sectors have rebounded but have not yet decisively broken above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Crucially, their relative performance to the overall global index has been rather sluggish (Chart I-14). This corroborates the lack of global growth tailwinds behind this global equity rally. Chart I-13Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Chart I-14Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM stocks and credit markets within their global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Without an improvement in the global business cycle, the rebound in EM currencies is not durable. As China’s growth disappoints, EM currencies will depreciate versus the dollar, the euro and the yen. Renewed currency depreciation will erode returns on EM local currency bonds for international investors. For dedicated EM local bond portfolios, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea (Chart I-15). Our underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India and today we are downgrading Turkish local bonds to underweight (please refer to section on Turkey starting on the next page). Chart I-15Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal? The odds of a policy reversal in Turkey are rising. The government’s patience with tight monetary policy may be running thin. The nation’s GDP contracted by 3% in the final quarter of 2018 from a year ago. Further contraction is in the cards. Chart II-1 signifies that monetary policy is indeed tight: Lira-denominated bank loan growth is at zero, and in real (inflation-adjusted) terms bank lending has shrunk by about 18% from a year ago. Chart II-1 The ongoing painful economic retrenchment (Chart II-2) and rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing – something the Turkish central bank has done often over the current decade. Chart II-2 Specifically, the central bank’s liquidity provisions to the banking system will likely begin to rise (Chart II-3). The severe liquidity tightening, underway since October 2018 via reduced lending to banks, has been partially responsible for the stability in the exchange rate. As the central bank augments liquidity provisions to the banking system, the lira will again come under renewed selling pressure. Rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing. The goal of liquidity provisioning would be to bring down interbank rates and, ultimately, lending rates. Presently, the spread between commercial banks’ lending rates and the interbank rate is negative (Chart II-4, top panel). This is unsustainable. The authorities have forced banks to bring down their lending rates in recent months. As a result, the gap between banks’ lending and deposit rates has also narrowed considerably (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This will weigh on the banks’ profitability. Consequently, we are closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. Chart II-3 Chart II-4 The government cannot force banks to reduce their lending rates further without reducing their cost of funding. Hence, the central bank might opt to inject excess reserves into the system to bring down interbank rates. Thereafter, the authorities could “guide” banks to further lower their lending rates. Policy easing might not be in the form of outright policy rate cuts to avoid a negative reaction from financial markets. Instead, the central bank could push down inter-bank rates by way of obscure liquidity injections into the banking system. To be sure, the odds of the currency reacting poorly to such loosening of liquidity are non-trivial. This, along with the ongoing recession, the shrinking bank net interest margins and the slow pace of bank loan restructuring, are leading us to downgrade the Turkish bourse that is heavy in bank stocks. Investment Recommendations Downgrade Turkish stocks and local currency bonds back to underweight. We closed our short/underweight positions in the Turkish currency, bonds and equities on August 15, 2018. For details, please see the report Turkey: Booking Profits On Shorts. This has proved to be a timely move as Turkish markets have rebounded notably and outperformed their EM peers (Chart II-5). In our opinion, it is now time to downgrade it again. Chart II-5 ​​​​​​​ We are also closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. This position has netted a modest 2.3% gain since its initiation on November 29, 2018. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Trepidation engulfs commodity markets like a fog weaving through half-deserted streets. Central bankers huddle in muttering retreats, growing more cautious by the day. EM growth concerns – particularly slowing trade volumes, and the drama surrounding Sino – U.S. trade negotiations – contribute to this. Europe’s slowdown as Brexit approaches, and a U.S. government that seems forever at loggerheads also sap investor confidence. Nonetheless, the level of industrial commodity demand – oil and copper in particular – continues to hold up. By our reckoning, EM growth still is positive y/y. And central bank caution – along with less-restrictive policies – provides a supportive backdrop for industrial commodities down the road. The production discipline we expect from OPEC 2.0 this year sets the stage for a continued rally in oil prices. Given our view on EM growth, we continue to favor staying long oil exposure, and remaining exposed to industrial commodities generally via the S&P GSCI position we recommended on December 7, 2017. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We are closing our open long call spreads in 2019 Brent, having lost the ~ $1/bbl premium in each. We are opening a new set of similar positions in anticipation of the next up-leg in Brent. At tonight’s close of trading, we will go long Brent $70 Calls vs. short $75 Calls in June, July and August 2019. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Metal Bulletin’s benchmark iron ore price index for China traded through $90/MT earlier this week, as supply concerns continue to weigh on markets in the wake of evacuations from areas close to tailings dams used by miners.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Bullion broker Sharps Pixley reported the PBOC’s gold reserves total almost 60mm ounces, up 380k ounces from end-2018 levels. Russia’s state media outlet RT proclaimed: “China on gold-buying spree amid global push to end US dollar dominance” on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Last week’s USDA WASDE report estimates world ending stocks for grains will be up slightly for the 2018-19 crop year at 772.2mm MT vs 766.6mm MT previously estimated in December. A January report was not issued due to the U.S. government shutdown. Feature In discussions with clients in the Middle East last week, few contested the assertion OPEC 2.0 is determined to keep supply below demand this year, in order to draw down global oil and refined product inventories.2 This strategy worked well for the coalition after it was stood up in November 2016. Back then, production cutbacks, an unexpected collapse of Venezuelan output, and random outages in Libya and elsewhere combined with above-average global demand to keep consumption above production. This led to a drawdown in OECD inventories of 260mm barrels between January 2017 and June 2018. OPEC 2.0 is off to a strong start on its renewed effort to rein in production and draw down inventories. OPEC (the old Cartel) cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d.3 The largest cut once again came from KSA, which reported it reduced output by just over 400k b/d m/m in January. This follows a 450k b/d reduction in December 2018 reported by the Kingdom in last month’s OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report. For March, KSA already is indicating it plans to drop production to 9.8mm b/d – 1.3mm b/d less than it was pumping in November 2018. There are some signs of discord within OPEC 2.0. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin once again is arguing against the coalition’s production-cutting strategy, this time in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin.4 This is not the first time such disagreements were aired: In November 2017, leaders of Russia’s oil industry walked out of a meeting with Energy Minister Alexander Novak following a disagreement with the government on extending OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal launched at the beginning of the year. In the end, the deal was extended after President Putin weighed in.5 A Deeper Look At Demand Uncertainty These supply-side issues are not trivial, and pose significant risks to our price view. All the same, Russia does benefit from higher oil prices, in that inelastic global demand in the short-to-medium term produces a non-linear price increase when supply is reduced. Russia’s OPEC 2.0 quota calls for production to fall from 11.4mm b/d production basis its October 2018 reference level (11.6mm b/d at present) to 11.2mm b/d in 2019. As long as Russia’s participation in the OPEC 2.0 coalition advances its economic and geopolitical interests – i.e., higher revenues than could be expected without having a direct role in global production management, and in deepening its ties with KSA – we expect it to remain a member in good standing in OPEC 2.0. At the moment, the bigger issues center on the state of global demand for industrial commodities. Unlike the situation that prevailed during the first round of OPEC 2.0 cuts, global markets no longer are seeing a synchronized global recovery in aggregate demand. Rather, EM commodity demand growth – the engine of global growth – has been trending down at a slow and constant pace since the beginning of 2018. This is not news: It shows up in our new Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, and we’ve been writing about it and accounting for it in our metals and oil demand projections for months (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCommodity Demand May Be Bottoming Commodity Demand May Be Bottoming Commodity Demand May Be Bottoming BCA’s GIA index is heavily weighted to EM commodity demand. Based on our estimates, it appears to be close to or in a bottoming phase and ready to turn up within the next quarter. It is worthwhile pointing out that even with the slowdown over the past year or so, BCA’s GIA index still stands significantly higher than the level registered during the manufacturing downturn of 2015-16. This also adds color as to why the OPEC market-share war launched in November 2014 was so devastating to prices – demand was contracting while supplies were surging from OPEC 2.0 states and from U.S. shale-oil producers. Pessimism Is Overdone We have maintained for some time commodity markets are overly pessimistic on the global growth outlook, mainly because of their gloomy view on the Chinese economy, and anticipated knock-on effects for EM growth arising from this view. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy succinctly capture the current mood pervading global markets: “… this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors.”6 We continue to expect the slowdown in EM to persist in 1H19 based on our modeling and actual consumption data. Part – not all – of this is due to the slowdown in China, where policymakers are moving to reverse earlier financial tightening with modest fiscal and monetary stimulus in 1H19. We continue to expect the Communist Party leadership in China will want to start increasing stimulus later this year or in 1H20, so that it hits the economy full force in 2021 in time for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP. Such stimulus will bolster industrial commodity demand. Still, this is difficult to call, particularly the form stimulus will take. President Xi appears committed rebalancing China’s economy – i.e., supporting consumer-led growth – and may want to keep policy powder dry, so to speak, to counter a recession in 2020 or thereafter. Stimulating the consumer economy in China could boost consumption of gasoline, and demand for white goods like household appliances at the expense of heavy industrial demand. Oil and base metals used in stainless steel would benefit in such an environment. Timing this rebound remains difficult. It appears to us that oil and, to a lesser extent, base metals have undershot their fair-value levels (based on our modeling) on the back of negative expectations and sentiment. If we are correct in this assessment, this should limit the negative surprises going forward and open upside opportunities for commodity prices (Chart 2). Chart 2Technically, Oil's Oversold Technically, Oil's Oversold Technically, Oil's Oversold Under The Hood Of BCA’s Newest Model Because demand is so difficult to capture, we continually are looking for different gauges to measure it and cross-check against each other. We developed our Global Industrial Activity index to target the actual performance of commodity-intensive activities globally. Each component is selected based on its sensitivity to the cycle in global industrial activity, hence on the cycle of global commodity demand. This is different from the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), which uses a GDP-weighted average of 23 countries’ LEI. By relying on GDP, the LEI weights in the indicator favor DM countries and do not account for the growing share of the service sector in these economies (Chart 3).7 Chart 3GIA Captures Commodity Demand GIA Captures Commodity Demand GIA Captures Commodity Demand Our GIA index focuses on commodity demand, which is fundamentally different from proxies of global real GDP growth or global economic activity. Nonetheless, we included the BCA global LEI with a small weight (~ 10%) in our index to capture DM economies. This inclusion does add information to our new gauge. Our GIA index correlates with Emerging Markets’ GDP, copper and oil prices with lags of one to three months. This index is designed to measure the strength of the underlying demand for commodities. It does not account for the supply side and other idiosyncratic shocks that affects each commodity. For instance, our index captures ~ 55% of the variation in the y/y movement in oil prices; adding our oil market supply and sentiment indicators on top of the demand variable raises this to more than 80% (Chart 4). Chart 4Combined Indicators Work Best Combined Indicators Work Best Combined Indicators Work Best The index is divided into four main components, which gauge the demand-side impacts of (1) trade; (2) currency movements; (3) manufacturing demand; and (4) the Chinese economy, given its importance to overall commodity demand. The GIA index’s Trade Component combines EM import volumes and an estimate of global dry bulk shipping rates to gauge demand. Readers of the Commodity & Energy Strategy are familiar with our use of EM trade volumes as a proxy for EM income.8 This week, we introduce a new proxy for shipping rates using the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) as a proxy of global economic activity. Our methodology is based on the approaches taken by James D. Hamilton and Lutz Kilian in their respective models that use the BDI to proxy global growth.9 We created two alternative measures based on each of their approaches and average them to come up with our own proxy of the cyclical factor of global shipping rates driven by demand. Both of our alternative measures use a rebased version of the real BDI, which uses the U.S. CPI to deflate the nominal value. Because it picks up the surge in shipping activity in 2H18 resulting from the front-running of tariffs in the Sino – U.S. trade war, the Trade Component of our GIA index gives the most positive readings of all the components (Chart 5, panel 1). By the end of this month, we expect the effects of this front-running to avoid tariffs will wash through the gauge, and we will have greater clarity on the state of global trade. Chart 5Performance Of GIA Components Performance Of GIA Components Performance Of GIA Components The Currency Component uses a basket of currencies that are sensitive to global growth – i.e., the currencies of countries heavily engaged in trade – and the Risky vs. Safe-haven currency ratio built by BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy.10 This allows us to capture the information regarding the state of global economic activity contained in the highly efficient and forward-looking currency markets. This component collapsed in March 2018, but seems to have bottomed recently (Chart 5, panel 2). The Manufacturing Component looks at the PMIs and various business conditions and expectations surveys for countries that have large industrial exposures to the economic health of EM.11 Currently, this component signals a continuation of the downward trend first observed at the beginning of 2018 (Chart 5, panel 3). Lastly, the Chinese Economy Component uses two indicators of the country’s industrial output: the Li Keqiang Index, and our China Construction Indicator. Despite the fact that the slowdown in China is at the center of investor pessimism re global demand, this component is still holding well (Chart 5, panel 4). It has a moderate negative trend, but is not alarming for commodity demand. Moreover, we expect some stimulus in the second half of the year, which should keep this component supportive for commodity prices. Industrial Commodity Demand Still Holding Up Our GIA index proxies demand for industrial commodities, which is closely aligned with EM GDP – as GDP grows, demand for industrial commodities grows (Chart 6, panel 1). The GIA index is more correlated with copper prices than with oil prices, but it still provides an excellent snapshot of the state of demand for these commodities (Chart 4). Chart 6GIA, Meet Dr. Copper GIA, Meet Dr. Copper GIA, Meet Dr. Copper Also, it is interesting to note there appears to be only one large specific supply shock that affected the copper market’s relationship with global demand (Chart 6, panel 2). Our new index supports the Market’s “Dr. Copper” argument, in the sense that copper prices are pretty much always aligned with global industrial activity. We also note that the recent Sino – U.S. trade tensions have pushed copper below the value that is explained by our demand proxy. Bottom Line: The resolve of OPEC 2.0 to reduce production is not in doubt. OPEC (the old Cartel) reported this week its member states cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d. On the demand side, new GIA index indicates things are not as bad as sentiment and expectations would indicate. If anything, we expect the combination of OPEC 2.0’s resolve and rising demand for industrial commodities – oil and copper in particular – to lift prices as the year progresses.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Brazil evacuates towns near Vale, ArcelorMittal dams on fears of collapse,” published by reuters.com on February 8, 2019. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition of OPEC states, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC states, led by Russia, which recently agreed to cut production by ~ 1.2mm b/d to drain commercial oil inventories and re-balance markets globally. 3      Please see the February 2019 issue of OPEC’s Monthly Oil Market Report, which is available at opec.org. 4      Please see “Exclusive: Russia’s Sechin raises pressure on Putin to end OPEC deal,” published by uk.reuters.com February 8, 2019. 5      Please see “Russian oil unsettled by talk of longer production cuts,” published by ft.com November 15, 2017. 6      Please see “A Crisis Of Confidence?” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy, published February 12, 2019.  It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7      The components of the global LEI are also different from our GIA index, and more market-oriented. For details on each series included in the LEI, please see “OECD Composite Leading Indicators: Turning Points of References Series and Component Series,” published February 2019. It is available at oecd.org. 8      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk,” where we discussed the relationship between EM imports volume, EM income and commodity prices, published August 23, 2018, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9      The best approach is still debated in the literature. For more details on Hamilton and Kilian’s measurements, please see James D Hamilton, “Measuring Global Economic Activity,” Working paper, August 20, 2018 and Lutz Kilian, “Measuring Global Real Economic Activity: Do Recent Critiques Hold Up To Scrutiny?” Working paper, January 12, 2019. By selecting EM only import volumes and our proxy shipping rate based on the BDI, we narrow our Trade Component to factors that are mainly linked to industrial activity and commodity-intensive sectors. 10     Our basket of currencies includes Korea, Sweden, Chile, Thailand, Malaysia and Peru. The risky vs. safe-haven currency ratio average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). 11     This includes Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China and Australia. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades     TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018 Image